Can Garegivers Provide Medicine, To Patients Other Then His Own.

[chi_guy]

"I'm going to save your response to this question. It is by far the most definitive and logical answer to the question....."I am a Caregiver/Patient, Can I supply other patients medicine"?

 

Again it this not the most logical answer to the question. Mr highlander himself agreed that patient to patient transfers are legal if you go back thru the posts. I don't understand why still have to keep going thru this If it's legal to acquire, legal to possess, and legal to transfer. Both parties are protected!!!!

[UrbanFarmer]

What will matter is what judge/jury think. And the very fact that the decision will be made by them should give anyone reason enough to pause and think before they act on any of these matters of debate.

 

I'll agree with that one, for sure. Couldn't have summed it up any better. All of these "gray areas" will remain just that until a court or legislature provides a clear law/ruling.

[peanutbutter]

Your question "have you asked a judge?" is the most important thing you said...and perhaps "have you asked an appeals court judge or supreme court justice?" is an even better question.....as it will likely be one or more of those folks who settle this and other debates once and for all.

 

That's what it comes down to.

I agree. So then, if we use every opportunity to convince every judge such actions are against the law, perhaps we will succeed in convincing a judge before they have a case. Which side of the argument would you like to add your weight to?

 

1 ) Please let me go

2 ) toss me in prison

 

It doesn't matter what we patients and caregivers think, what LEO thinks, what the PAs and lower court judges think, what VV or Peanutbutter, Greg, Brad, Greg Schmid, Matt Able, or the average voter believes.

 

What will matter is what judge/jury think. And the very fact that the decision will be made by them should give anyone reason enough to pause and think before they act on any of these matters of debate.

One reason to attend as many court cases as you can. Get the hews fresh. Watch it happen.

 

Are you at the place and time where you believe it is lawful to have a joint in your pocket?

 

Your arguments could be used to instruct everyone to wait for everything. To assume everything is completely illegal. After all .. there have been no supreme court cases yet.

 

Does it say you can "smoke a joint" in the new law? It does not. So it must be illegal, correct?

[zonelabs]

Hi Everyone ,

I would like to get some feed back on caregiver to caregiver transfers . Say I have 10 strains of medical marijuana and would like to offer some of my strains in return for some of a differant strain , so our patients can have 20 to choose from rather than just 10. also applies for hash and oils. If anybody knows anything about this please let me know.

 

Peace

[zonelabs]

Hi Everyone ,

I would like to get some feed back on caregiver to caregiver transfers . Say I have 10 strains of medical marijuana and would like to offer some of my strains in return for some of a differant strain , so our patients can have 20 to choose from rather than just 10. also applies for hash and oils. If anybody knows anything about this please let me know.

 

Peace

Colorado Meds , They rock

[tricloud]

What the law does say is that a patient's conduct with MJ must be for the purposes of alleviating his qualifying condition. Giving Mj to another patient doesn't alleviate your condition. Therefore, the Act does not protect that action.

 

I've read the Mich Med Mj Act many times and don't remember reading that. That's your interpretation and it's different than my attorney's interpretation but that's cool.

 

I think when we make statements about about the gray areas we shouldn't be so "matter of fact".

[dlovas]

Hey everybody, I have a simple question for anybody that can help. I am a caregiver here in Michigan, Im newer so my medicine is still in the veg room. Anyways I have two questions. My first one is, am I able to provide other patients(other than my own) with medicine? My brother and I are looking into starting a Compassion Club. Theres alot more of what were working on, a service that provides many different services. Dispensary, therepy,support groups smoking assories, growing equipment. Well you get the point. I need a good reliable website or something that can be of good help to get us on our feet. And of course please tell me your thought on opening a dispensary.

I look foward to hearing from anybody. I think that this change if a blesssing for so many people. Im really happy to be a part of something so benificial to soo many careing peeople. PEACE.

The law is so grey you will simply end up in court to fight it. There are dispensaries open all over the state all of which are totally rag tag. I have yet to see a good one. There is however COLORADO (dispenasry) owners coming into set up shop in metro Detroit within 30-45 days to open the states first REAL DEAL Dispensary. tHE LEASE WAS SIGNED ON A LEGIT RETAIL SPOT LAST WEEK. The rest of the MI dispensaries are frankly run by Amateurs. Now when LEO gets tired of wasting tax money on medical MJ they will give up and go after real Crack, heroin and Meth dealers. And get with the program and stop messing with people that have gone thru the proper channels. They target Medical MJ people because its easier than actually working the streets and doing their jobs. PERIOD.

[truthBOMB]

I am of the belief that transfers are legal, and have been told by both attorneys and LEO that it's going to be interpreted locally until a precedent is set. I use a document during transfers with my patients, and I believe it would cover any form of transfer. I'll try to cut and paste it here:

 

I hereby aknowledge the Transfer Service of Medical Marihuana in accordance with the Michigan Medical Marihuana Statute and I have agreed to compensate the patient named on this contract for the aforementioned Transfer Service. This Service Transfer shall not be construed as nor constitute the sale of a controlled substance; the Service Transfer is in direct accordance with Section 3 Subsection (e) of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act; i.e. "Medical use" means the aquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patients debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

 

Signed on This Day,

 

 

Patient Name:

 

 

Patient Signature:

 

MDCH MMP Number:

 

 

Patient Name:

 

 

Patient Signature:

 

MDCH MMP Number

 

TO be clear of your use, is this what you use for your registered 5 patients or outside of that list?

[Highlander]

I've read the Mich Med Mj Act many times and don't remember reading that. That's your interpretation and it's different than my attorney's interpretation but that's cool.

 

I think when we make statements about about the gray areas we shouldn't be so "matter of fact".

 

I agree that statements about gray areas should not be matter of fact...and that is what I have been preaching on this website for over a year now. There are a lot of people who will simply state, "p2p transfers are 100% legal." It almost seems that there is a conspiracy to lure the unsuspecting to become test cases. I just hope that patients don't get their legal advice from some guy on the internet.

 

The excerpt I refer to is:

(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

 

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

 

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

I'm all for interpretations and debates. I just want people to be aware that p2p transfers could subject them to arrest.

[chi_guy]

Section 4k

 

(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who

sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical

purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked

and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a

fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the

distribution of marihuana.

 

 

why would the authors have included section 4k if they didn't expect there to be commerce between patients and caregivers. Both patients and caregivers are allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes.

 

Why wouldn't they have just wrote:

 

k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who

sells marihuana shall have his or her registry identification card revoked.

and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a

fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the

distribution of marihuana.

[Highlander]

Section 4k

 

Both patients and caregivers are allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes.

 

 

Caregivers are not granted the right of medical use of marijuana...only the right to assist a patient with medical use. So if you sell marijuana to a CG who isn't also a patient, wouldn't that be selling marijuana to someone who isn't authorized to use marijuana?

[chi_guy]

"Caregivers are not granted the right of medical use of marijuana...only the right to assist a patient with medical use."

 

Wrong,

 

Caregivers are allowed to "engage" in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act. According to section 4d your favorite part.

 

(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary

caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if

the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

 

We can agree that "engaging" in medical use and "assisting" in the patient's medical use are different.

 

Furthermore, section 8a further clarifies that a primary caregiver can use marihuana for medical purposes.

 

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7, a patient and a patient's primary

caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense

to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid

where the evidence shows that:

 

Notice it says "may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana"

 

 

A registered primary caregiver may only "assist" the patient with their medical use whom they are connected too through the department when it comes specifically to cultivating plants for that patient or possessing cannabis for that person.

 

However, there is no restriction put that requires a registered primary caregiver to be connected through department to a patient in order for that registered primary caregiver to be considered "engaged" in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act.

[Highlander]

"Caregivers are not granted the right of medical use of marijuana...only the right to assist a patient with medical use."

 

Wrong,

 

Caregivers are allowed to "engage" in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act. According to section 4d your favorite part.

 

(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary

caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if

the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

 

We can agree that "engaging" in medical use and "assisting" in the patient's medical use are different.

 

Furthermore, section 8a further clarifies that a primary caregiver can use marihuana for medical purposes.

 

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7, a patient and a patient's primary

caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense

to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid

where the evidence shows that:

 

Notice it says "may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana"

 

A registered primary caregiver may only "assist" the patient with their medical use whom they are connected too through the department when it comes specifically to cultivating plants for that patient or possessing cannabis for that person.

 

However, there is no restriction put that requires a registered primary caregiver to be connected through department to a patient in order for that registered primary caregiver to be considered "engaged" in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act.

 

Yours is a good response to my question, but if you are correct, then a CG may also internally possess marijuana, smoke it, eat it, etc....all those verbs included under "medical use." The law may/does provide presumptions that a CG is engaged in the medical use of marijuana, but if the CG is not specifically granted the right of "medical use" in the first place, then who cares if the law presumes that the CG is engaged in medical use? Let's put it this way - an 18 year old can't be a CG but can actually do something that meets the definition of "medical use" for a patient...but the law never says that ALL medical use is OK. Similarly, someone with a drug felony is capable of doing something that meets the definition of "medical use," but that doesn't mean that the action is legal.

 

Just because you can define an action as "medical use" doesn't mean that the action is (always/inherently) legal.

 

Please see Section 7 -

 

Sec. 7. (a) The medical use of marihuana is allowed under state law to the extent that it is carried out in accordance with the provisions of this act.

 

(B) This act shall not permit any person to do any of the following:

 

(1) Undertake any task under the influence of marihuana, when doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice.

 

(2) Possess marihuana, or otherwise engage in the medical use of marihuana:

 

(A) in a school bus;

 

(B) on the grounds of any preschool or primary or secondary school; or

 

© in any correctional facility.

 

(3) Smoke marihuana:

 

(A) on any form of public transportation; or

 

(B) in any public place.

 

(4) Operate, navigate, or be in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft, or motorboat while under the influence of marihuana.

 

(5) Use marihuana if that person does not have a serious or debilitating medical condition.[/i]

 

The Act is pretty explicit that you can't "use" marijuana in you don't have a serious or debilitating medical condition. So the non-patient who is a CG is specifically excluded from "using" marijuana.

 

When you boil it down, the law says "you can't use marijuana if you don't have a debilitating condition." and also "If you sell marijuana to someone who isn't authorized to use it, you can be facing a 2-year felony"

 

I don't see any other conclusion here. If you don't have the medical need for marijuana, you can't use it. If someone sells marijuana to someone who can't legally "use" it, they committed a crime. Anyone acting contrary to this is taking a huge risk.

 

PS sorry about the emoticons - my copied text from the Act apparently made them.

[chi_guy]

I don't think we disagree on the fact that a primary caregiver or anyone other than a patient can "use" marihuana. But we are confusing the term "use" with "medical use".

 

the word "use" is part of the definition of "medical use". since the act specifically restricts anyone other than a person with a serious or debilitating medical condition to "use" marihuana per section 7b(5) as you pointed out, caregivers logically cannot "use" or "internally possess" marihuana. However this does not mean they can't use marihuana for medical purposes.i.e. if a caregiver transfers to another caregiver and the receiving caregiver then supplies their patient. This is an example of two caregivers who are not allowed to "use" marihuana but are using it for medical purposes.

[Highlander]

I don't think we disagree on the fact that a primary caregiver or anyone other than a patient can "use" marihuana. But we are confusing the term "use" with "medical use".

 

the word "use" is part of the definition of "medical use". since the act specifically restricts anyone other than a person with a serious or debilitating medical condition to "use" marihuana per section 7b(5) as you pointed out, caregivers logically cannot "use" or "internally possess" marihuana. However this does not mean they can't use marihuana for medical purposes.i.e. if a caregiver transfers to another caregiver and the receiving caregiver then supplies their patient. This is an example of two caregivers who are not allowed to "use" marihuana but are using it for medical purposes.

 

Sounds to me like you are walking a tightrope, blindfolded, over a pit of alligators. The Act doesn't say that a CG can "use" marijuana for medical purposes; it says that the CG can assist a patient with medical use (which, yes we agree, includes the term "use" as part of the definition." So a CG can cook with marijuana to make edibles for his patient, but this isn't the CG "using" marijuana; it is the CG assisting the patient with use of marijuana.

 

Whatever we end up agreeing that "use marijuana" means, the Act says two very specific things.

 

1. You can't "use marijuana" unless you have a debilitating condition

 

2. If someone can't "use marijuana," then it is illegal to sell that person marijuana.

 

So whatever "use" means doesn't really matter; you can only do it if you are a patient, and all the word-smithing and alternative definitions don't change the language "(B) This act shall not permit any person to do any of the following:.....(5) Use marihuana if that person does not have a serious or debilitating medical condition."

[chi_guy]

"The Act doesn't say that a CG can "use" marijuana for medical purposes; it says that the CG can assist a patient with medical use"

 

 

I thought I went over this, the act does say a cg can use marijuana medical purposes. lets go over it again.

 

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7, a patient and a patient's primary

caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense

to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid

where the evidence shows that:

 

"MAY ASSERT THE MEDICAL PURPOSE FOR USING MARIHUANA"

 

Sounds to me like you are blindfolded brother. The points you make get more and more weaker, then you start using examples that are really not relevant. i.e. Taking dogs to the pound and the whole story about patients passing joints to eachother.

[chi_guy]

"So whatever "use" means doesn't really matter; you can only do it if you are a patient, and all the word-smithing and alternative definitions don't change the language "(B) This act shall not permit any person to do any of the following:.....(5) Use marihuana if that person does not have a serious or debilitating medical condition."

 

If it was that cut and dry then the authors could have easily wrote in section 4k

 

Section 4k

 

(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who

sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to "use" marihuana under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a

fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the

distribution of marihuana.

 

 

But they specifically wrote "use marihuana FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES"

 

This isn't wordsmithing or alternative definitions, this is the truth. It seems the wordsmithing or alternative definitions are coming from those who are fear mongering.

[Highlander]

"So whatever "use" means doesn't really matter; you can only do it if you are a patient, and all the word-smithing and alternative definitions don't change the language "(B) This act shall not permit any person to do any of the following:.....(5) Use marihuana if that person does not have a serious or debilitating medical condition."

 

If it was that cut and dry then the authors could have easily wrote in section 4k

 

Section 4k

 

(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who

sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to "use" marihuana under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a

fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the

distribution of marihuana.

 

 

But they specifically wrote "use marihuana FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES"

 

This isn't wordsmithing or alternative definitions, this is the truth. It seems the wordsmithing or alternative definitions are coming from those who are fear mongering.

 

I'm disappointed that you didn't see the value in my dog pound analogy; I tried to use a simple example to demonstrate rules of grammar. Grammar is like math..there is no interpretation...only fact....I'll ask that you please consider for a moment that your grammar skills, while generally good, seem not to be quite up to the level necessary to advise people on what may or may not be a felony....just consider...

 

And then let's look at your support for your argument:

 

“Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7, a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:”

 

First off – this defense is dead in the water in our example due to “except as provided in Section 7” Section 7 is the place where the “can’t use marijuana unless you have a debilitating condition” comes from…so Section 8 doesn’t even apply if the action is in conflict with Section 7. So your defense it already out the window. We should stop here since Section 8 doesn’t apply if Section 7 is violated. But let’s move on anyway. Think about this a little further. If you “can't use MJ if you dont have a debilitating condition” (disallowed in Section 7) but are protected for that action by Section 8, then someone could present the same defense for smoking marijuana on a school bus, also explicitly not protected in Section 7.

 

Next, this defense you present is only employed after arrest and when you are in court. Not a fun place to be.

 

Third, once again, there appears to exist a misunderstanding rooted in grammar. The defense you present is for a “patient and a patient’s primary caregiver, if any.” I’d agree with you if the wording were “a patient OR a patient’s primary caregiver.” But as written, if a CG is trying to use this defense, he MUST do so in conjunction with his own patient….so both patient and CG are in the courtroom. There can’t be a solitary CG presenting this defense. And, the defense can’t be launched by a CG together with the patient of the CG he sold to. It is either a patient presenting the defense or a patient and his CG.

 

But in the scenario we are debating, the CG in trouble is the guy who sold the marijuana to another CG….then the relevant patient was not even involved. So for this reason – this defense doesn’t apply either, but moving forward anyway still….

 

Let’s look at the elements the defendant must prove:

 

(1) A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;

(2) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition; and

(3) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.

 

Items #1 and #2 pass – no problem, right?

 

Recall that we are talking about the selling CG here…so “The patient” referred to in this part is the selling CG’s patient… (back to those pesky grammar rules again…we can’t shift attention to the buyer’s patient here) NOT the patient registered to the CG who bought the marijuana.

 

So this defense fails Item #3. The transfer was not for the purpose of treating “the” patient’s condition….because “the patient” is necessarily the selling CG’s patient

 

So when we break all this down, in your view, what would result is a CG trying to explain how his selling of marijuana to another CG was for the purpose of treating his own patient’s condition.

 

So Guy A selling Marijuana to Guy B, alleviates the medical condition of Guy C.???

 

It won’t work.

 

You may believe that someone trying to understand the limitations of the law is fear mongering….I disagree….It would appear more that someone justifying one CG selling to another is trying to justify making big dollars off growing marijuana.

 

 

After all this, if the selling caregiver gives the stuff away for free instead, then he didn’t “sell marijuana to someone who isn’t authorized to use marijuana.”

 

Interesting, huh? Sell your overages to a CG, and you are a felon. Give it away for free, and you’re golden. What a concept. Maybe that is what the people who wrote this law were thinking?

[chi_guy]

First of all I know my grammar isn't great. But all that matters to me is getting the point across.

 

Second, your statement: "someone justifying one CG selling to another is trying to justify making big dollars off growing marijuana"

 

I will have to disagree with that wholeheartedly. Take this scenario: A cg get spider mites and his crop is ruined. His patient who really needs their meds and has been waiting three months already is out of luck. What the fear mongers want is that sick patient and/or their caregiver to go to the street to buy meds. Obviously you must not be too involved in the mmj community to know the real issues people are facing. Instead you like to worry about people making money. It would be great if I could go to the restaurant and eat for free or go to the doctor for free without insurance companies involved. I have no problem with patients or caregivers making money I guess that makes me a bad person. But atleast the money is going back into the community instead of the cartels who it seems the fear mongers might be working for lol.

 

Now back to the subject at hand which I thought was the question "Can a CG use marihuana for medical purposes?"

 

Again section 8 which begins with: Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7

doesn't apply because as we discussed earlier a cg using marihuana for medical purposes is not "using" marihuana so they would not be violating section 7.

 

I was only using section 8 to clarify that caregivers are allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes. Whether or not it applies to an affirmative defense is irrelevant. The item in question is 4k

 

(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who

sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical

purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked

and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a

fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the

distribution of marihuana.

 

 

The CG is allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes that's all that matters in order to satisfy 4k

 

Some say since the act doesn't specifically address commerce between patients and caregivers (i.e. selling or transfers) that these acts are illegal and it goes without saying. But some of us believe that if both parties are legally able to possess logically transfers are legal and it really should go without saying.

[Highlander]

Chi Guy and I will probably have to agree to respectfully disagree on this matter. I believe that Section 7 makes it illegal for a non patient CG to use marijuana, and therefore it is illegal to sell MJ to a CG who isn't also a patient. As a CG/patient myself, I hope I'm wrong.

 

I don't believe that the law was written with the intent to support commerce between CGs. It just doesn't make sense to me when you consider that a CG can get "compensation for cost" associated with assisting his patients. I'm not one to think that a CG can only charge for nutes and lights or that he can only charge a nominal fee for his labor. I think if a plumber who can make $25/hour decides to work full time being a CG, then he should be able to earn $50,000/year after expenses for doing so. I have no problem with that. I hope people do make money doing this.

 

But Chi Guy's position regarding selling to a CG makes this whole equation problematic. Let’s say our example CG has 5 patients who each use 5 oz/month. That’s 25 oz/month.

 

The CG rents a house to grow in for $500/month, he pays $500/month for utilities, about $500 per month average for equipment/bulbs/payment for startup costs, etc. And he wants to make another $4,000/month on top of that. So he needs $5,500/month from those five patients, so each pays him about $1,100/month for five ounces – or about $220/oz. Seems pretty fair.

 

After awhile, the CG realizes that he is going to start having 10 oz/month more than his patients need because he has become a better grower. His costs have not increased, but his yields have increased 40%. This is a fairly common scenario for new growers.

Then he finds a CG who can’t produce enough to keep up because of spider mites, etc….and he sells that CG the 10 oz for $2,500.

 

If the selling CG’s cost to produce that month’s marijuana have not increased substantially, but now he has money coming in from another CG, is he still charging his patients “compensation for cost at $220/oz?” I don’t believe he would be. Unless the extra income ends up lowering the price for the patients, I don’t see how the CG can still claim he is charging compensation for cost. Or did the CGs time suddenly become worth $30/hour rather than $20/hour now that he is a better grower? So his labor cost has increased. Maybe. Maybe not. However, if the CG gives the 10oz away for free, then his cost to produce the 35 oz/month is the same as it was for 25, and he still charges his patients $220/oz.

 

On the other hand, since in this thread I believe we have come to a safe conclusion that p2p transfers are legal, maybe that is where we pick up the slack for the patients whose CG lost his grow to mites…maybe the CG with overages transfers those extra meds to his patients, and then his patients decide how compassionate they want to be...and our CG is still earning $50k/year for growing.

 

Maybe the transfer necessary to help the other CG’s patients should be from the CG with meds directly to the patients of the CG without the meds. Why do we need a CG in the middle of that transaction?

 

If we keep reminding ourselves that the law was written for the benefit of patients, not CGs, maybe my position makes more sense. I do believe that the law intends to provide CGs with protection, but I don’t believe it was written specifically to facilitate commerce, and therefore, the benefits that a lot of people want for CGs are not there.

 

I think that most of the people who voted for the law were under the belief that we would not experience the proliferation of dispensaries like Cali has seen….that the MI law would not be supportive of large distribution networks. If one CG can legally sell to any other CG or patient, then most of the voters truly didn’t know what they were voting for.

 

Some people are accusing me of being anti-MMJ, but those of you who believe that these distribution networks are protected are essentially using the same primary argument that our opposition uses “the voters didn’t understand what they were voting for.”

[Highlander]

 

"First of all I know my grammar isn't great. But all that matters to me is getting the point across" You do a good job of getting your point across, but that isn't the problem...the problem is whether or not you use proper grammar rules when you are trying to figure out exactly what the law says. Use of "a" vs "the," placement of a comma, and all sorts of seemingly little things make a huge difference in statutory interpretation.

[peanutbutter]

Use of "a" vs "the," placement of a comma, and all sorts of seemingly little things make a huge difference in statutory interpretation.

 

Even the Bible says "there is no God."

 

Of course the whole sentence says "the fool hath said in his heart "there is no God.""

 

Yep .. context, sentence structure, punctuation .. conjunctive words .. was that "and, or, not or but?"

 

I presume that you've done doctrine debates before. (chapter and verse, please)

 

At least the first release of this law had punctuation.

[esadmf]

well i think any card holding CG can transfer meds to any card holding patient. so long as is in writing by the patient it was grown for... if you read the patient caregiver agreement, under third party transfers it reads.

 

THIRD PARTY TRANSFERS

_____ I do not authorize the caregiver to transfer any of my plants, or parts of plants (clones) to anyone.

_____ I authorize the caregiver to transfer my plants, or parts of my plants to other patients or caregivers

upon their request, including trades, swaps and donations.

Terms of third party transfers:_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

 

under terms of third party transfers the patient needs to spell out. that any overages of finished material should not be destroyed but can transfer to any other cg or patient with a valid card. so they can try and partially recoup the high cost of growing his or her medicine. or to help those unable to afford the high growing cost, or to those without a caregiver and suffering.PatientCaregiverAgreement.pdf this is nearest i can find that says "card to card" transfers are allowed

[MiMedicalMJ]

That is not a state form, at least not one I have seen anywhere!

That seems to be a form someone drew up between them and their patients.

Where did you find that form?

 

 

well i think any card holding CG can transfer meds to any card holding patient. so long as is in writing by the patient it was grown for... if you read the patient caregiver agreement, under third party transfers it reads.

 

THIRD PARTY TRANSFERS

_____ I do not authorize the caregiver to transfer any of my plants, or parts of plants (clones) to anyone.

_____ I authorize the caregiver to transfer my plants, or parts of my plants to other patients or caregivers

upon their request, including trades, swaps and donations.

Terms of third party transfers:_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

 

under terms of third party transfers the patient needs to spell out. that any overages of finished material should not be destroyed but can transfer to any other cg or patient with a valid card. so they can try and partially recoup the high cost of growing his or her medicine. or to help those unable to afford the high growing cost, or to those without a caregiver and suffering.PatientCaregiverAgreement.pdf this is nearest i can find that says "card to card" transfers are allowed

[dlovas]

Hey everybody, I have a simple question for anybody that can help. I am a caregiver here in Michigan, Im newer so my medicine is still in the veg room. Anyways I have two questions. My first one is, am I able to provide other patients(other than my own) with medicine? My brother and I are looking into starting a Compassion Club. Theres alot more of what were working on, a service that provides many different services. Dispensary, therepy,support groups smoking assories, growing equipment. Well you get the point. I need a good reliable website or something that can be of good help to get us on our feet. And of course please tell me your thought on opening a dispensary.

I look foward to hearing from anybody. I think that this change if a blesssing for so many people. Im really happy to be a part of something so benificial to soo many careing peeople. PEACE.

 

P2p transfer are written in the law. But is has failed to define a transfer of sale or simply transfer from P2P or if one patient receives green paper is that a "transfer of sale"...? Where are all these POT attorneys at..lol....Nobody knows it will end up in court. Just hope it is not you or I...lol..a CG to Psatient that is even shadier into the grey area.